PN1

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good morning, please be seated. I don't like this thing sitting in the way, but anyway.

PN2

THE ASSOCIATE: I'll get it out of the way.

PN3

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I like to maintain eye contact but I should be able to - yes, I'm tall enough, fine. All right, I'll briefly just confirm appearances.

PN4

Ms Cruden, is it?

PN5

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN6

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms O'Brien?

PN7

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN8

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Galbraith?

PN9

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN10

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Biddlestone?

PN11

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN12

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Cullinan?

PN13

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN14

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I believe we have Mr Schyndel on the phone?

PN15

MR VAN SCHYNDEL: That's correct.

PN16

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Have I got that pronunciation correct?

PN17

MR VAN SCHYNDEL: It's good enough, Commissioner.

PN18

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. I guess that means I was close but no cigar. All right, thank you.

PN19

All right, thank you for coming along today. This conference follows the decision that was issued on 20 February in relation to the Fast Food Award determination of the substantive issues. Now one issue was identified in the decision that the Bench has asked me to convene a conference of the parties at, and that is to get their views and input into potential drafting to reflect some provisional views that we had expressed in that decision which the parties will be familiar with. Now that does not presuppose that the Bench's provision views will be confirmed in a final decision.

PN20

That will be subject to - that will be dealt with at another time. So the purpose of today is to work through those provisional views, to have discussion in relation to some drafting that has been prepared by the AMOD team - and I apologise for the late provision of that. I hope it hasn't compromised the parties' ability to provide some input today. I have additional copies here if parties don't have copies with them. All right, so that's the purpose of today.

PN21

At the end of today I'm intending to provide a report to the presiding member, the President, and then discuss with him in respect of next steps. Subject to that I would expect that the Bench will firm up its preliminary view and put something more substantive to the parties to seek more formal submissions in relation to final drafting. Any questions about anything I've said so far? No?

PN22

MS BIDDLESTONE: So - sorry.

PN23

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN24

MS BIDDLESTONE: So I just had one query.

PN25

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN26

MS BIDDLESTONE: And that was just in relation to the decision. We are satisfied with the provisional view that's been provided in the decision.

PN27

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN28

MS BIDDLESTONE: But in terms of the role that we play in the process I suppose we had some questions around what resources we should be putting into this given paragraph 114 of the decision talks about the weight that is given to interested parties in matters around award review.

PN29

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I can't remember that paragraph offhand. Well, true it may be but you definitely have interest ultimately in the award that's - - -

PN30

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes. No, that's not in doubt in terms of our interest.

PN31

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.

PN32

MS BIDDLESTONE: I suppose, you know, we're now in year - - -

PN33

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I know.

PN34

MS BIDDLESTONE: What, five or six? I've lost count.

PN35

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We're anxious to conclude this process.

PN36

MS BIDDLESTONE: Of the review and, yes, in terms of I suppose the resources that we continue to expand.

PN37

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN38

MS BIDDLESTONE: If the views of the interested parties aren't given much weight I suppose we have to start considering how much of our resources we continue to invest in - - -

PN39

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I guess the only comment I would make is that the residual issue that arises from the Full Bench decision is fairly narrow.

PN40

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's very narrow, yes.

PN41

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And limited.

PN42

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN43

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So, certainly it would be the Bench's preference to deal with this expeditiously.

PN44

MS BIDDLESTONE: Okay.

PN45

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Without requiring the parties to expend - - -

PN46

MS BIDDLESTONE: Too much energy.

PN47

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - too much time and resources.

PN48

MS BIDDLESTONE: Okay, yes.

PN49

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So we're as anxious as the parties I think to dispose of these matters.

PN50

MS BIDDLESTONE: Thank you.

PN51

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, if we were going to accord little or no weight to the views of the parties then I don't think I'd be wasting my time here today.

PN52

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's what I wanted to clarify.

PN53

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.

PN54

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN55

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. All right.

PN56

MS BIDDLESTONE: Thank you.

PN57

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so the award mod team - and I think my associate sent a memo that had come to me. Since then a background paper has been put onto the website. I don't know if the parties have a copy of that?

PN58

MS BIDDLESTONE: No.

PN59

MS CRUDEN: No.

PN60

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, it was subsequent to the memo. It simply reflects what was put onto the website.

PN61

MS BIDDLESTONE: We have a copy but I don't think Mr Cullinan has one.

PN62

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN63

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Cullinan, do you have a - - -

PN64

MR CULLINAN: Thank you.

PN65

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I mean it has the particular caveat there in relation to - just to assist discussion and does not represent the view of the Full Bench, so I put that clear disclaimer out there. So I'm neither invested or wedded to the particular drafts that have been provided to assist discussion. So I guess they may be a useful starting point but as I look at the two options I would summarise them as follows. Option 1 is a more general option which provides for the variation of fixed working time arrangements and would cover both specific shifts and would also cover ongoing changes to the patterns of work both on the permanent or a temporary basis.

PN66

Whereas option 2 seeks to make a distinction between two potential scenarios, one where there is a change to the ongoing hours of work be that on a permanent or defined period, and the other deals with - and it also deals with changes to a particular shift. I think the evidence revealed at times there will be circumstances where a person is employed with a particular shift and there's a need for the person to work additional hours and the impracticality of getting that written agreement in advance. So I think option 2 seeks to distinguish between that particular shift change as opposed to an ongoing change in the pattern of work. So that's a sort of a broad summary of the differences between option 1 and option 2.

PN67

So I guess I'll be guided by the parties as to how they want to proceed here, but I'm happy to get the views of each of the parties; one, in relation to the particular options that have been presented and also any alternate suggestions in terms of drafting. Because members of our AMOD team and obviously members of the Bench don't have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to these sorts of things, so perhaps as maybe one of the moving parties in terms of sought changes to the award I'll allow the Ai Group to make their common submission.

PN68

MS CRUDEN: Thank you.

PN69

MS O'BRIEN: Thank you, Deputy President. I note that we only received these provisional views yesterday afternoon.

PN70

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.

PN71

MS O'BRIEN: So I haven't had the luxury of speaking to all - - -

PN72

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I appreciate that.

PN73

MS O'BRIEN: About this with the other parties.

PN74

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN75

MS O'BRIEN: So I would - - -

PN76

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And, sorry, to ensure that there is time to do that, you know, there's not a fixed timetable to conclude this. But, yes.

PN77

MS O'BRIEN: That would be appreciated. At the moment we have reviewed the two options and there are two issues that are coming to front of mind for the employer parties. They are incorporated into both proposed options.

PN78

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN79

MS O'BRIEN: We note we're here today to discuss the provisional view of the Commission.

PN80

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.

PN81

MS O'BRIEN: That was that the award placed unwarranted restrictions over the capacity to vary part‑time hours.

PN82

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN83

MS O'BRIEN: So our first position, which is in 12.2 of both proposals is that the requirement at the time of engagement to agree with part‑time employees for the times of taking breaks and the duration of meal breaks places an unwarranted restriction on the capacity to vary hours. So we're instructed that that causes some difficulty. Speaking to the example you were just speaking to where you need to vary any shift, say someone was moving from a five hour shift to an eight hour shift, if their agreement only allowed them to have a 15 minute break early in the day we wouldn't have the flexibility to change that break to a lunch break for a longer period. So that's our concerns in relation to the meal breaks.

PN84

The second issue we have which is in 12.3 of the first option and 12.3 and 12.4 of the second option is in relation to the timing of the recording of the variation. The provisional views note that it didn't have to be before the variation that occurred but should be recorded by the end of the shift. That timeframe, by the end of the shift, can create some difficulty depending on the lead time before the variation occurs. Perhaps our alternate approach would be to have greater flexibility in the timing at which the variation was to be recorded which we would say is at the end of the manager's shift or perhaps by the end of the day, to have more flexibility. I'm just conscious that often in the peak times a variation may only be half an hour.

PN85

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN86

MS O'BRIEN: And it's still that written requirement that's required.

PN87

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I do know that the provisional view that we expressed used the term 'at the end of the relevant shift' whereas the draft talks about prior to the end of the - - -

PN88

MS O'BRIEN: Yes. Yes.

PN89

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so I understand that.

PN90

MS O'BRIEN: And I think there's some confusion. I know in our draft determination we had contemplated the longer term so there's just some confusion as to which way it would go. But they're our two concerns at this stage.

PN91

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So just if I can - I know these are just provisional views the Ai Group is putting but in terms of a structure of a clause would it be the Ai Group's preference to focus more on an option such as option 1 or option 2 where a distinction were made between changes to a particular shift and distinguishing that from changes to the ongoing pattern of work? Because they're two different scenarios, yes.

PN92

MS O'BRIEN: Two different - at this stage we're comfortable with either option. We can see the utility in both. I know we led evidence that there were some short time changes and some longer term.

PN93

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN94

MS O'BRIEN: The only difficulty is with the second proposed option.

PN95

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN96

MS O'BRIEN: That it has to be - that the variation needs to be recorded before it happens.

PN97

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN98

MS O'BRIEN: We may need some lead time in that because we have the roster cycle that needs to be released. But we certainly don't at this stage have a preference with one over the other.

PN99

MS CRUDEN: If I can elaborate, Deputy President, as well just in terms of the manner in which the requirement to record the varied arrangement by the end of the affected shift appears to be drafted on the premise that we're referring to the end of the employee shift. My friend, Ms O'Brien, did touch on this but just to clarify if the concept related to the conclusion of the managers' shifts who oversaw or was responsible for approving the change then that would be a difference between for example if there were a number of employees throughout the course of a manager's eight hour shift, for example, who had made these changes throughout the course of the shift if the change needed to be documented at the end of each employee shift that's a number of multiple interruptions throughout the course of the shift. If it was in reference to the manager documenting them by the end of the managers' shifts it would mean that if there had been more than one variation throughout the course of the shift the manager, by way of example, could document all those at the conclusion of their shift in just one interruption to their work day or one imposition onto their work day. So by changing the focus - - -

PN100

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So if I can summarise I think the point you make. So the focus on the recording of the change in hours for one or more employees should be by reference to the completion of that work by the relevant manager as opposed to by reference to the finishing time of the particular employee?

PN101

MS CRUDEN: That's the proposition, that it may cause less interruption throughout the course of the day.

PN102

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let me try and capture that. I know we're anyhow recording this, so. I guess you could also have a situation where there were more than one employee who was required or requested to change their hours and those hours may not all correspond as finishing at the same time. Somebody might finish at 8 o'clock.

PN103

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN104

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Someone might finish at 9 o'clock, someone might finish at 7 pm.

PN105

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN106

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN107

MS CRUDEN: So provided the manager doesn't leave and finish their shift without noting or recording it - - -

PN108

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that circumstance might also arise where there's a crossover between two managers potentially in terms of recording.

PN109

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN110

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. All right, is there anything else you wanted to say at this stage?

PN111

MS O'BRIEN: No.

PN112

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So Mr Galbraith or Ms Biddlestone?

PN113

MS BIDDLESTONE: Are you happy for me to go?

PN114

MR GALBRAITH: Sorry, just - yes.

PN115

MS BIDDLESTONE: Just before we talk about the options.

PN116

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN117

MS BIDDLESTONE: I think it's probably best while we're talking about the point that Ai Group has raised, I just have a little bit of confusion about how that would work because my understanding of the clause is that you're actually getting agreement in writing from the employee, not that the employer records in writing for themselves what the variation is. So - - -

PN118

MR GALBRAITH: It's the result of a consultation between - - -

PN119

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN120

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's agreement in writing from the employee so - - -

PN121

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, that's the current provision. It has to be in writing prior to the change and part of the evidence that came out during the hearings was that the practicality of that being achieved prior to - - -

PN122

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, we're not opposed to the provisional view in that the variation can be made in writing, you know, up until the end of the shift but the agreement in writing still has to be made by the employee. So to extend that timeframe to beyond the hours they're working I don't think would work because, what, are you going to call the employee back in to give agreement in writing that they'll work the extra - - -

PN123

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It can be done by electronic means.

PN124

MR GALBRAITH: And we accept a form of electronic agreement.

PN125

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN126

MR GALBRAITH: Provided that the employee is involved in that process.

PN127

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right.

PN128

Sorry?

PN129

MS CRUDEN: Sorry, so just again to clarify that. So in 12.2 of both proposed redrafts there is - so there's the requirement of the time of first being employed to agree in writing on the items stipulated there and then it goes in both scenarios to refer to 'That the employer and employee may agree to vary an agreement made' and then it needs - 'the variation is recorded by the end of the affected shift'. I query whether that allows scope for the agreement that's made during the course of the shift to be done verbally and then there is a requirement to record it by the end of the shift. But whether or not that could be a unilateral recording done by the manager on - - -

PN130

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is all up - - -

PN131

MS CRUDEN: - - - the verbal agreement.

PN132

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is all up for discussion, okay?

PN133

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN134

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So - - -

PN135

MS CRUDEN: So I confess I had read it slightly different in that there would be agreement, but that would be the verbal agreement struck throughout the course of the shift or at the time the request was made and agreed to, and a notation of that would be made.

PN136

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So let's just use as an example an employee is approached mid-shift and told 'Look, one of your colleagues has rung in sick. We'd like you to stay back an extra four hours. Are you okay to do that?' 'Yep, no worries'. So that would probably be the normal course of events. The question then arises how is that then recorded, by when, by who and in what form? Okay, so that seems to be the issue I think that you're raising. Are you saying that the record would have to be either a notation on a roster which is signed by the employee, an electronic confirmation by way of text message for example - though you could question the value of that when they're there on the spot. Text has more utility when a person is geographically not in the same location. It might be an email confirming the agreement to change the shift, right?

PN137

MR GALBRAITH: Deputy President.

PN138

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN139

MR GALBRAITH: It's the sort of logistics sort of mechanism of a verbal agreement and as AIG have said there might be a number of employees seeking to extend their - or the employer seeking to extend a number of employee shifts. So if you had a handful of verbal agreements, the recording of those at the end of the manager's shift I think is problematic.

PN140

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN141

MR GALBRAITH: It goes to memory, it goes to getting it all done, and to getting it recorded properly. Is there not some utility in the employee at some point confirming at the point of the record being made that they've agreed to additional hours?

PN142

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, this one is not so much an issue where there's an ongoing change in the hours of work.

PN143

MR GALBRAITH: That's right.

PN144

MS BIDDLESTONE: No.

PN145

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that's more easily resolved.

PN146

MR GALBRAITH: Can be dealt with easily, yes.

PN147

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's the issue of how one records - - -

PN148

MS BIDDLESTONE: Captures the agreement, yes.

PN149

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Captures the agreement.

PN150

MS BIDDLESTONE: Just I suppose the other concern is that there could be disputation that arises out of whether there was an agreement or not, and then there's a question about what rate people are paid for the additional hours worked. So it's just ensuring whatever mechanism is arrived at.

PN151

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN152

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, just lessens the possibility or potential for disputation - - -

PN153

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN154

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - about an agreement.

PN155

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm not excluding Mr Cullinan from this conversation by the way, so you'll get an opportunity to comment on the things that have been - sorry, you were going to say something?

PN156

MS O'BRIEN: Just taking that example one step further, my understanding in the industry is that often on (indistinct) it is a verbal agreement but by the end of that shift they would then electronically finger scan or log out and that's why we would propose that we would have that flexibility at the end because that scanning out would generate an email or a text to say 'Do you agree you've worked additional hours?' and then it would have an accurate reflection.

PN157

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's if every company on the award takes that approach.

PN158

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, that was just one of the working examples.

PN159

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN160

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I mean that's why the drafting of the clause if it is to be amended needs to cope with - - -

PN161

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN162

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - different technological platforms that companies are using.

PN163

MS BIDDLESTONE: Or the fact that there will be many employers out there who are covered by the award who don't have any technological capacity to - - -

PN164

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In which case they might have a physical hard copy of the roster.

PN165

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN166

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which is edited by the manager and the employee may be asked to - - -

PN167

MS BIDDLESTONE: Sign it.

PN168

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - co-sign it. All right, so I guess it's - I think it's less important what's the form of recording as opposed to must there be an employee acknowledgement, whether that's in a written form, whether that's in an electronic form confirming their agreement to work those additional hours.

PN169

MR GALBRAITH: And the timing.

PN170

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, and the timing of that.

PN171

MR GALBRAITH: Because I just think it's fraught if you have a situation where a manager at the end of their shift sits down and tries to record the additional hours of a number of employees through the - - -

PN172

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, but we get back to the issue which the Bench was particularly sensitive to and that's the practicalities of breaking away from duties that were otherwise occupying them in the middle of a shift, potentially multiple times to capture that record. So that's the issue we need to work through and resolve.

PN173

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN174

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. All right, I think I've captured the concern you raised, the issue of the logistics of the verbal agreement and the means of capturing that agreement within whatever the required timeframe is, right? Does that summarise the point you're making?

PN175

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, that's if the view was taken that you would look at drafting that extends beyond what's captured in the proposal.

PN176

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.

PN177

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN178

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, as I said - - -

PN179

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN180

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - at the outset we're not invested in this draft. It's just to provide - - -

PN181

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, no. Yes, yes, no I mean in terms of extending it in a manner that the AIG have said, which goes beyond what's provided in the provisional view and - - -

PN182

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well the provisional view is not too clear. Where it says 'at the end of shift' does that mean immediately at the end of the shift? Does it mean - - -

PN183

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, well that was how we read the decision I suppose.

PN184

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN185

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's why we've come with - - -

PN186

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN187

MS BIDDLESTONE: In terms of our response for the drafting we've come with the view from our reading of the decision - - -

PN188

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. All right.

PN189

MS BIDDLESTONE: So just to clarify in relation to our preference around the options that have been put, we think that option 2 is clearer and that it is useful - - -

PN190

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: To distinguish between.

PN191

MS BIDDLESTONE: To distinguish between because they are quite different scenarios and I don't know that on reading of the decision that we anticipated that changes to the agreement in writing would have affected changes to someone's ongoing roster. So our preference is that the two are quite distinct.

PN192

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN193

MS BIDDLESTONE: And that that's how it should be drafted.

PN194

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay. All right.

PN195

MR GALBRAITH: Deputy President.

PN196

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes?

PN197

MR GALBRAITH: Just going back a step, AIG mentioned at the beginning their concerns about the times of taking and the duration of meal breaks and we would see that going to what the Full Bench said about re-agitating matters already determined. So while AIG may see that as a restriction we see that as something that's currently in the Fast Food Award and it's not open for any change.

PN198

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I guess we need to think through the consequential impact of changes to hours in mid-shift, right, and what are the consequential impacts on that on the entitlements. As I understand the Ai Group are saying 'What's the consequential impact of that on meal breaks?' because - - -

PN199

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, but if you're making an agreement to vary the number of hours you're working in a shift then that agreement would include any consequential changes that that impacts in terms of the breaks that you take. We think that agreement could be recorded at the same time.

PN200

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so a person that's rostered to work a four hour shift is then requested after an hour to work an eight hour shift, just an example, because a colleague's not coming in. I sort of pose this rhetorical question for AIG to consider, would the relevant agreement - sorry, would the award not then provide an entitlements to meal breaks based on the long shift?

PN201

MS O'BRIEN: Yes, it does but I think we'd still need to record the variation.

PN202

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, so if a person working a four hour shift - and I've got a copy of the award but I haven't got the provision - is entitled to a particular break in that four hours currently? I don't know, that's a rhetorical question.

PN203

MS O'BRIEN: I think it might be more than four hours depending on the shift.

PN204

MS CRUDEN: There is.

PN205

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN206

MS O'BRIEN: There is meal break provisions but I think - - -

PN207

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, 'Breaks' clause 29 - - -

PN208

MS O'BRIEN: - - - the part‑timer has to agree to those at the beginning, and any variation to that agreement including the meal breaks.

PN209

MS CRUDEN: If I could perhaps provide an example.

PN210

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN211

MS CRUDEN: In clause 27.1 of the current drafting of the Fast Food Award where an employee is scheduled to work five hours but less than nine hours they have an entitlements to one 10 minute rest break and one meal break of at least 30 minutes but not more than 60 minutes. So if an employee's agreed written hours with that was a five hour shift and had the structured defined times for the meal breaks that would specify the times.

PN212

If there was an agreement made for example to flex the shift up to an eight hour period it wouldn't change the break entitlement under the award but it may well be that the employee would like to, or it might be more convenient to take a break at a mid-point or a different point in the shift bearing in mind the extended duration of that.

PN213

MR GALBRAITH: Deputy President, I think at 12.2:

PN214

At the time of first being employed the employer and the part‑time employee will agree in writing on a regular pattern of work specifying the times of taking and the duration of breaks.

PN215

I think in that at 12.2 the breaks are referring to the regular pattern of work. So we would see if there's any additional hours worked then - - -

PN216

MS BIDDLESTONE: That would automatically vary the times and potentially duration of the breaks, but that would be recorded in the agreed variation for that shift. I suppose our concern, and I think it is a genuine concern, is what Ai Group are actually seeking is the ability to change people's duration and times of taking meal breaks in circumstances when they're not changing the number of hours they work.

PN217

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, well this is focussed on changes to hours of work, let's talk about in mid-shift, all right? So there's a change - - -

PN218

MS BIDDLESTONE: I understand that's what our conversation is but my concern is if we start making changes to 12.2 in terms of what - - -

PN219

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, we're not proposing changes to 12.2.

PN220

MS BIDDLESTONE: Right.

PN221

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The Bench has not proposed that, all right, but I - - -

PN222

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, I know the Bench hasn't but I think - - -

PN223

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no, but let me finish. The Ai Group have raised as I understand it a concern that if mid‑shift - or, sorry, at the start of a shift an employee is asked to work an additional four hours, right? So they normally have a five hour shift but they're asked to work let's say an eight hour shift.

PN224

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN225

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that their normal time of taking a meal break under that arrangement might be a particular time in the shift.

PN226

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, we have no concerns about that change - - -

PN227

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that - - -

PN228

MS BIDDLESTONE: - - - in the number of hours - yes.

PN229

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that moving it to an eight hour shift might necessitate a change in the timing of the meal break.

PN230

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, but I think that could be captured in the agreement that you'd get - - -

PN231

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that the issue that the Ai Group - - -

PN232

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN233

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right, okay. So it's just the logistics of if a shift is lengthened what's the impact of that on the timing of a meal break. Now in 99 per cent of cases there would be a sensible discussion about 'Yeah, well, I'll take my meal break an hour later' or 'half an hour earlier'.

PN234

MS BIDDLESTONE: That's - yes.

PN235

MR GALBRAITH: And I think, Deputy President, you made the point we don't disturb 12.2.

PN236

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN237

MR GALBRAITH: We address that in the (indistinct), yes.

PN238

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, and I mean I think the way the options are drafted it would pick that up anyway.

PN239

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, but I'll capture the issue of meal breaks as being a concern with the Ai Group to ensure that where there are changes to hours mid‑shift there's flexibility in relation to that. That's the concern they've raised.

PN240

MS O'BRIEN: Mm‑hm.

PN241

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Are there any additional points in relation to comments on the draft from the SDA?

PN242

MR GALBRAITH: Look, I would just make the point that the concept of agreement to work additional hours, if there's genuine agreement and it's within the span of agreed additional hours then it's paid at ordinary rates. If it's not by agreement then it's overtime. I think - I'm not sure whether - the draft doesn't refer to that particular point.

PN243

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN244

MR GALBRAITH: It is identified in the overtime clause but quite possibly that needs an (indistinct) - - -

PN245

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, and there could potentially need to be some consequential amendments to clause 12.7 or whichever numbering is used.

PN246

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, subset.

PN247

MS BIDDLESTONE: Just to capture all of the scenarios.

PN248

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN249

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN250

MS O'BRIEN: Although the overtime clause does provide for part‑time and full‑time employees that overtime will be paid before an employee's roster commencing time on any one day. So the shift before - after the time on any one day, so the shift back, and outside the ordinary hours and then in excess of any agreed hours in 12 point - - -

PN251

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, this is just an amendment to 12.7 so that the clause reference is just - so fixed, yes. Not proposing changing overtime.

PN252

MS O'BRIEN: The overtime provisions. Yes.

PN253

MS BIDDLESTONE: No.

PN254

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So just so I'm clear - - -

PN255

MS BIDDLESTONE: It's just the - that's just drafting.

PN256

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The issue was the ability to alter the ordinary hours and how we capture that. It wasn't the intention to alter the circumstances in which overtime was payable.

PN257

MS BIDDLESTONE: No, no, that it attracted - no, no, that's right. Yes. Yes.

PN258

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything else at this stage?

PN259

MS BIDDLESTONE: Do you want to raise the - - -

PN260

MR GALBRAITH: The eight hour?

PN261

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN262

MR GALBRAITH: Yes. There was a provisional view too that the minimum weekly engagements be eight hours, which is not recorded in the draft but it is a view at - - -

PN263

MS BIDDLESTONE: One five - - -

PN264

MR GALBRAITH: 151.

PN265

MR GALBRAITH: The guarantee - - -

PN266

MR GALBRAITH: Guaranteed minimum hours.

PN267

MS BIDDLESTONE: That there would be guaranteed minimum hours, yes.

PN268

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you for that.

PN269

Mr Cullinan?

PN270

MR CULLINAN: Thank you, Deputy President. Some of the issues have already arisen.

PN271

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN272

MR CULLINAN: We are concerned the way we read paragraph 151 of the decision that last sentence of it is really trying to explain the earlier sentence, and so it's not that there's wider gambit, it really is focused on the issue of the simplification of the requirements attaching to the variation, 'A part‑time employee's agreed regular pattern' and then at 154 they're explained. We are concerned that it's not - this isn't an arrangement to do something other than vary the contractual arrangement between the employee and the employer, and our concern is that if there is going to be a variation to the contractual arrangement that it be - that the award provide for it to be taken as serious as that concept is.

PN273

And for us that means that there needs to be a circumstance by which a default position arises where the recording doesn't occur, and so at the moment the recording of the agreement occurs before it's done. If that recording's not going to occur till later we're concerned that there's a default position that the worker who works additional time is paid at overtime rates if it's later not agreed, if there isn't that recording in writing. So that was what we were coming today proposing, but in the discussion it appears there's some differences of view about what is actually being recorded.

PN274

For us what's being recorded is as the SDA said, it's the agreement between the employer and the employee. That can't occur without the employee participating, and whilst it could occur by an exchange of text messages or an exchange of emails or some other electronic means, we are concerned that it involve the employee directly.

PN275

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So as opposed to the employer simply making its own record in which there's no evidence that the employee actually consented?

PN276

MR CULLINAN: Yes. Yes and so - - -

PN277

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. So that's essentially I think what we captured earlier, and that is what is the means of recording the agreement?

PN278

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN279

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it as it states now, a written agreement prior to the change, or expanding the options such that it can be captured in other ways. But there must be a record of the employee, you say as I understand it, and the SDA, there must be a record of the employee actually agreeing.

PN280

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN281

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As opposed to the employer simply making a notation on a timesheet that so and so worked an extra four hours at ordinary time.

PN282

MR CULLINAN: Yes, or there being some other record.

PN283

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN284

MR CULLINAN: So I think the example was the finger scan. Well, the finger scan is a record of when the worker hopefully finished work. That would be used for record keeping and for the payment of overtime. Even if it triggered the sending of an email to the worker saying 'You've worked an extra hour and a half today. By finger scanning out you agreed to', that still for us is not the recording of the agreement that the employer and the employee did, and it's more so not just that it be a record, it's that it's a contract variation. So for other circumstances it might be an appropriate record but here it's a contract variation and therefore, yes, those systems - - -

PN285

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Contract variations do occur other than by written means routinely.

PN286

MR CULLINAN: Well, that probably takes me to the next concern we have.

PN287

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no, I'm just making the general observation contracts can be varied verbally.

PN288

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN289

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right? Now that's not what we're talking about here.

PN290

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN291

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But I'm just responding to the point it has to be written.

PN292

MR CULLINAN: Yes.

PN293

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In a strictly legal sense it doesn't have to be.

PN294

MR CULLINAN: Well, that - - -

PN295

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN296

MR CULLINAN: So our second concern is how is this accessible to employees?

PN297

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN298

MR CULLINAN: And so the proposal - and we understand it's the provisional view.

PN299

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN300

MR CULLINAN: That in the proposed clause that it be on request provided to an employee. We are concerned that it actually be accessible to employees and as distinct from being what might be like an employee record where an employee has to request from an employer their annual leave or their personal leave balance. We are concerned that the recorded agreement be accessible so that those employees can make decisions without having to alert their employer to their concern that they might hold about the agreements that they've entered into, and that's on a practical level.

PN301

For a union it comes about because the employee might want to gather information so that they can get advice from a lawyer or a union, and we see the pointy end of that far too often when they ask for such information. At the moment they're given a copy. We think that the provision should provide for that the recording or recorded, entered thing, be accessible to the employee. We recognise as well there's going to be two systems which are by far used by fast food employers noting that McDonald's is by far the largest.

PN302

And then we have others like Dominos, with Mr Van Schyndel on the phone, that we understand Dominos uses rosters signed, documents that are signed by employees on a regular basis for variations. We expect an institute like McDonald's will have systems in place which are electronic and can be accessed online by those employees in their McDonald's apps and websites. So we think that generally these things will be accessible to employees but that the award right changing under the provisional view, we would like to see it provide for accessible to, rather than upon request.

PN303

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN304

MR CULLINAN: We've dealt with the - in terms of views we too support the second option as being a better format for dealing with the two types of changes.

PN305

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN306

MR CULLINAN: I think to be clear when we say that we support the second option it is in the context of a default point about what rate is paid where the agreement isn't later documented.

PN307

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN308

MR CULLINAN: We're trying to find a pathway which sees RAFFWU support one of them and that would be where - - -

PN309

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So just let me play that back so I'm catching it rightly. Your support of the default position is premised on it being clear within any amended provision that a failure to record in accordance with the requirements of the provision would lead to an obligation to pay the additional hours at penalty rates?

PN310

MR CULLINAN: Well, at overtime, yes.

PN311

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.

PN312

MR CULLINAN: Yes, and the same goes for the recorded document to be accessible to employees which we think the best way for an employer to do that is to give a copy, but we understand the provisional view. We note what the SDA have said about paragraph 151. The words, the two issues, the guaranteed minimum hours for part‑time workers was the first issue. The clause doesn't propose - sorry, the decision doesn't propose what those hours might be. We believe that 10 hours is a more appropriate base for part‑time fast food workers. It's a very common base at the largest employer, being McDonald's, but we're not quite sure of the pathway that the Full Bench had in mind to discuss that. But a guaranteed minimum seven hours or 10 hours is what our proposal would be.

PN313

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just remind me where was - - -

PN314

MR CULLINAN: It's in 151.

PN315

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. 'We see merit in the provision of guaranteed minimum hours for part‑time employees'. Yes I see. I see. Yes.

PN316

MR CULLINAN: And certainly the application by the AIG had an eight hour base, as Mr Galbraith has identified.

PN317

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, okay.

PN318

MR CULLINAN: They were the matters that we wanted to raise this morning.

PN319

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN320

Mr Schyndel, you've been patiently listening to all of this on the phone. Did you want to add anything at this stage, before I circle back?

PN321

MR VAN SCHYNDEL: No, not at this stage. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN322

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Van Schyndel. I apologise.

PN323

Yes?

PN324

MS CRUDEN: Deputy President, I do have a number of points to make regarding the comment from the Full Bench in paragraph 151 regarding the provisional view that there is merit of guaranteed minimum hours for part‑time employees.

PN325

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN326

MS CRUDEN: As has already been noted there's no current proposal that - the proposed drafting that we're working round in that regard. So the comments I made are on the basis that obviously we're unaware of what the number of guaranteed minimum hours would be proposed or whether that would be a guarantee per week, per roster cycle, or some other averaging method.

PN327

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN328

MS CRUDEN: I guess it's also somewhat unclear the basis on which the Full Bench has concluded that inclusion of a guaranteed minimum hours in isolation from the other aspects of the flexibility that were being sought is warranted or has merit in this case. That's not intended to be a criticism, just an issue upon which I'm unclear at this point. If I can respond specifically to the comment that there was a proposed minimum number of hours in the clause that Ai Group had proposed in the matter, that was a whole of package approach.

PN329

So the guaranteed hours act as somewhat of a buffer to the other proposed flexibilities and as an additional safeguard, and I think that was made quite clear in the - particularly the submissions that we put on and the closing oral submissions that were made on behalf of Ai Group. Under the flexible part‑time clause that had been proposed, because employees made themselves available for windows of time on particular days the role of those guaranteed hours which were set at a minimum of eight had the effect or could have had the effect of assisting employee to understand or plan for the amount of work they might be expected to do within those rostered minimums - - -

PN330

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm going to stop you here. I understand that was the position that was put.

PN331

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN332

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What has been circulated to the parties today - - -

PN333

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN334

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - doesn't address the issue of the minimum hours.

PN335

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN336

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The union have raised a question about that.

PN337

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN338

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand Ai Group put the eight hour - - -

PN339

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN340

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or, sorry, the suggested minimum in the context of a package.

PN341

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN342

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll need to circle back with the Bench to discuss how we move that one forward.

PN343

MS CRUDEN: Okay. Okay.

PN344

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I just don't want us to get into re‑agitating arguments - - -

PN345

MS CRUDEN: Yes.

PN346

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - that were put in relation to that issue before the Bench, at this stage.

PN347

MS CRUDEN: Okay, I'm happy to be brief then, Deputy President.

PN348

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN349

MS CRUDEN: In a nutshell the inclusion of minimum guaranteed hours absent the flexibility clause as a whole being included is opposed.

PN350

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I note that.

PN351

MS CRUDEN: Okay.

PN352

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, we're not re-agitating arguments that have been run. All right?

PN353

MS CRUDEN: Thank you, Deputy President. Yes.

PN354

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now if we progress and put a further view to the parties in relation to that provisional view then you'll have full opportunity to ventilate positions on that.

PN355

MS CRUDEN: Okay, thank you, Deputy President.

PN356

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, did you want to respond to any of the particular questions or comments that were raised by either the SDA or RAFFWU?

PN357

MS CRUDEN: In relation to the other aspects?

PN358

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN359

MS CRUDEN: Not the guaranteed minimum hours?

PN360

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes.

PN361

MS CRUDEN: I don't have any further comments. Thank you.

PN362

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right.

PN363

I'll just get some suggestions from the parties in terms of how they might be assisted to provide positions on a refined proposal. Whether the parties would be assisted by some further drafting work being done, trying to pick up on some of the comments that have been provided today, or whether the parties would see some value in having direct discussions between themselves in relation to potential options. So I'm going to take some comments from - and I understand that the parties may not have had an opportunity yet to talk widely, particularly the Ai Group, with their members and potentially the SDA and RAFFWU as well, so.

PN364

MS CRUDEN: We'll just confer for a moment if that's - - -

PN365

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, yes, sure.

PN366

MS CRUDEN: Thank you, Deputy President. We are happy, given that there was a number of I guess common themes raised amongst the parties, if the Commission is inclined to consolidate those key aspects and release a further draft. We are happy to perhaps take that further draft back to our members and consult with them in relation to that proposal.

PN367

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay.

PN368

MS CRUDEN: We're not, you know, firmly opposed to the parties endeavouring to draft amongst themselves either but - - -

PN369

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, well, I'll hear from the other parties.

PN370

MS CRUDEN: Of course. Thank you, your Honour.

PN371

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And see what people in general see is a sensible way forward.

PN372

MR GALBRAITH: We would see that approach as logical because we've been provided with a provisional draft. I think there's been a number of comments today meaning that a draft can be amended.

PN373

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN374

MR GALBRAITH: So if we saw an amended draft - - -

PN375

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And I'll continue to put the caveat that whatever draft is provided is not the - - -

PN376

MR GALBRAITH: It's provisional.

PN377

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN378

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: - - - final view of the Full Bench, all right?

PN379

MR GALBRAITH: I understand.

PN380

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm very cognisant at the moment that the presiding member is currently off on leave. He might come back and say 'That was a bunch of rubbish, Deputy President. Your drafting efforts require more work'. But it might assist an integrative approach but I don't want to over-egg the process in terms of endless iterations. I don't think that's necessary.

PN381

Mr Cullinan?

PN382

MR CULLINAN: Partly off the back of paragraph 114, I think our view would be further information summarised for the parties to comment on rather than the old system of consent awards. This is a very different path.

PN383

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN384

MR CULLINAN: So, yes, I think we'd prefer that much.

PN385

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. So I envisage a process that we might refine a draft set of words and get to a point where that assists the Bench form a firmer view about a set of words. But before the Bench were to determine that it would obviously seek more substantive submissions from the parties in relation to that set of words. But at this stage we're just trying to generate a potential draft that can be more firmly considered by the Bench. All right, okay, is there anything else any of the parties want to say to me at this stage?

PN386

MR GALBRAITH: Deputy President, I will just raise one minor point and that is the reference to 'any electronic means'.

PN387

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN388

MR GALBRAITH: And possibly if that gets limited to 'electronic means regularly used by employers and employees'. It's just the technology changes regularly.

PN389

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, what were you - - -

PN390

MR GALBRAITH: Well, the concept 'any electronic means'.

PN391

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN392

MR GALBRAITH: Is very broad.

PN393

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you're suggesting words such as 'electronic means - - -

PN394

MR GALBRAITH: 'As used by employers and employees'. I think the decision references 'facsimile' and I think these days I'm not sure anyone actually owns a fax machine any more. You do? All right. We'll leave it there for the moment.

PN395

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes, good one, Matt.

PN396

MR GALBRAITH: Not many of our members have fax machines.

PN397

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, some of us might remember. Maybe those on the right can't, or maybe those on my left can't either. Remember the old - - -

PN398

MS CRUDEN: I'm highly offended.

PN399

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, no, I can't remember the - when I first started graduate industrial officer, the telex machines used to print off on the perforated edges.

PN400

MR GALBRAITH: Dot matrix?

PN401

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN402

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, so you used to get the notifications from the Commission. This is back in the mid 80s - - -

PN403

MS BIDDLESTONE: And then you'd have to take all the - - -

PN404

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, that's right. You had to peel off the perforated edges to the telex printouts, and I think we should reinstitute much of what has been lost.

PN405

MS CRUDEN: Bring all that paper back.

PN406

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sounding like a Luddite I think when it comes to technology and I am quite - - -

PN407

MR GALBRAITH: So my point is consideration of any electronic means as the best wording - - -

PN408

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And it's by employers and employees.

PN409

MS BIDDLESTONE: Yes.

PN410

MR GALBRAITH: Yes.

PN411

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand the point you're seeking to - yes. Yes, it's quite interesting. I guess technology is advancing so rapidly as well. Even the wording that might go into the draft now might be redundant in a few years.

PN412

MS CRUDEN: It might be superseded. Yes, that's right.

PN413

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, we'll all have sort of chips embedded in our brain - anyway. All right, is there anything else anyone wants to say at this stage before I adjourn? What I'd like to do is talk with the award mod team, perhaps work up some further options and I can then circulate those to the parties and get comments, feedback on that, whether that's done by a further conference or whether it's done just in terms of some written comments. But I'll consult the parties about that once a further draft goes out to them.

PN414

MS O'BRIEN: Deputy President, I know this might be difficult to answer but would we have an indicative timeframe for the next cut of the draft?

PN415

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would like to get something out by the end of next week.

PN416

MS O'BRIEN: Okay, thank you.

PN417

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Yes, so is that clear enough?

PN418

MS O'BRIEN: Yes.

PN419

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Unless somebody wants to press me to do it quicker, I don't think I can but I don't want to delay it unduly.

PN420

MS O'BRIEN: That's fine.

PN421

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN422

All right, any other comments at this stage? All right, Mr Van Schyndel, did you have anything else at this stage to say?

PN423

MR VAN SCHYNDEL: No, I'm good at this stage. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN424

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you to the parties for that feedback. That was helpful in terms of outlining some preliminary concerns and issues that the parties have in relation to drafting. I'll provide the President with an update on his return from leave. But as I said, it's my intention to provide a further draft by the end of next week. Thank you. That's fine, thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [11.09 AM]